Hillary Clinton Versus Sarah Palin, Part II

Hillary supporters know that universal health care died in Denver in 2008. What is going on now is a mere masquerade, a charade in the age of fake to bamboozle the electorate.

Examples of the deceit and boobery abound – Roland Burris won’t vote for legislation that does not include a public option but the public option is dead; the Big Blog Boys pretend it is news that the Dimocrats are involved in a “murder/suicide” crime of historic proportions. We wrote about the Democratic suicide in real time, as it was happening – in August 2008, in Denver, at the convention.

And untrustworthy Howard Dean, the same Howard Dean we mocked by urging him to run for President might actually be taking steps to run for president. The foolish Doctor is prescribing the Obama health scam be “killed”.

Howard Dean is stabbing Obama in the back because Obama stabbed Howie in the back after Howie stabbed Hillary in the back at the behest and to benefit the backstabbing Barack Obama who along with Rahm Emmanuel stabbed Howie in the back. So now Howie is challenging Obama on the very day Obama continues to predict his scam will pass and urges Dimocratic senators to drag him and his toxic bill across the finish line in the same way they dragged him across the primary election finish line.

It’s time to again discuss the next presidential elections and Hillary’s future.

* * * * *

A few days ago, in Part II (Part III will be published this week as Obama returns to Copenhagen) of our Tiger Woods/Obama Birth Certificate/Rezko/etc. article we promised we would discuss the article we wrote immediately after the Hillary victory in New Hampshire during the primaries. We wrote, “if the Hillary campaign had followed our advice in that article on what to do next – things would have turned out differently”.

1. The next primary is Michigan. Hillary should declare that the Michigan delegation to the Democratic convention should be seated. Hillary should demand that all candidates agree that the Democrats of Michigan should not be disenfranchised. Make Michigan a big deal.

2. Same thing as above regarding Florida. Force Obama and Edwards to say whether the Democrats of Michigan and Florida should be disenfranchised – NOW – Before the Michigan and Florida primaries.

The campaign was too slow in taking our recommendation. It was months before Michigan and Florida came to the center stage as they should have been all along – certainly after New Hampshire when it was clear to everyone that every male candidate and every Big Media “personality” was devoted to Obama and the destruction of Hillary. In our article on January 10, 2008 we explained why we made the suggestions we made:

[Why do we suggest the above? Once the voting starts the race becomes about acquiring the delegates that will vote to elect the nominee at the Democratic convention. Hillary needs to secure the massive delegations from Michigan and Florida. The way to do that is to fight for them. Obama, via John Conyers, will run an advertising campaign to try to get the Michigan voters to vote noncommitted, not for Hillary, in their primary and deprive Hillary of a Michigan victory. Hillary has to fight for the votes in Michigan and Florida and demonstrate that Obama has not and will not support the voters of Michigan and Florida.]

We were right on target in January 2008.

We also strongly urged:

1. There has not been 1 single debate to discuss issues of importance to women. Not one single debate.

The Hillary campaign can insist that this oversight be corrected. The next debates before the February 5 primaries should be about issues specifically concerning women; a debate also on gay issues where we can discuss the Obama gay bashing tour. We should also have a debate to specifically discuss health care and Obama’s abandonment of 15 million Americans with his NOT universal health care plan. We should also have a debate to discuss issues of particular importance to young voters.[snip]

2. The next debate in Nevada on January 15 will be hosted by MSNBC. If Chris Matthews or Tim Russert are moderating these debates Hillary should refuse to attend. Let Matthews and Russert and Obama and Edwards attack her all they want but Hillary should make it clear she will no longer put up with their misogyny. At the very least, before the debate the campaign should preempt the “Iron My Shirt” brigade by demonstrating how soft they have been on Obama and how relentlessly unfair they have been towards Hillary Clinton. The campaign can research all the disgusting things MSNBC has aired and make it clear in specific terms how disgusting MSNBC has been.

Again, we were exactly on target, when it mattered, on January 10, 2008.

Our final suggestions also concerned Big Media and it’s love of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton had been doing what we suggested. Hillary Clinton had discussed what needed to be discussed, but her campaign did not follow through and allowed Big Media to continue its bad behavior. Here’s what we wrote:

In short, Hillary confronting Chris Matthews on his sick and twisted obsession with Bill Clinton’s penis and Hillary Clinton’s – well everything – and his blatent misogyny and “horny” talk and Jabba the Hut vileness was a smart move. We want to see more of a tough attitude towards the media. We know common political wisdom is that it is not good to pick fights with people who “buy ink by the barrel” but this is a particularly good moment to teach the American people about what their news outlets have become: propaganda outlets for the Big Media Party and in particular the Big Media Party candidate du jour Barack Obama.

As to Obama, continue to expose his record. In South Carolina ask the question to African-Americans: what has Obama ever done for you? Where has Obama been all these many years? Where has Obama been while Hillary Clinton has been fighting for the rights of all Americans, particularly African-Americans.

Discuss how Obama abandoned his African-American constituents in Chicago to unheated apartments while getting millions of dollars to the slumlord who is Obama’s friend. DISCUSS REZKO.

This one sentence merits further discussion:“We know common political wisdom is that it is not good to pick fights with people who “buy ink by the barrel” but this is a particularly good moment to teach the American people about what their news outlets have become…”

Today, that sentence embodies what we think Hillary Clinton must remember most when hiring for future endeavors. That sentence embodies most what we think Hillary Clinton can learn from Sarah Palin.

Hillary failed to win the fight against the Big Media Party because Hillary was under attack from all corners. Hillary was attacked by the PINO Big Blog Boys as well as their masters at Big Media. [snip]

Fox News is not a Hillary friend, but rather a constant enemy, even though during the primaries it was mostly fair and balanced. Fox News is increasingly up to its old tricks and attacks against Hillary. [snip]

Hillary has close to no Big Media allies. Hillary also, during the primaries had few allies on websites. Other than HillaryIs44 there were no other Hillary support sites. There were a few websites which tried to be fair and eventually became Hillary friendly websites but for too long Big Pink was all alone. We were right and strong but outnumbered by the PINO Big Blog Boys and the Big Media outlets on the internet.

Sarah Palin might succeed in her fight with Big Media. Sarah Palin does have allies in the right wing of the Big Media Party.

In the next fight Hillary Clinton will not be alone on the Internet. HillaryIs44 will not be alone. Too late, but by April 2008 many Hillary supporters had a presence on the internet to defend Hillary. More aggregators have followed listing the many Hillary support websites which came in our wake. But it was too late.

But even at that simply awful website, the Obama Hopium guzzlers are in retreat. Even there the NObama coalition is growing and mocking the Obama Hopium guzzlers who own Obama but are now seeking absolution to expiate their sins.

One of the most important 2012 preparations is the Sarah Palin book tour and a recent appearance by Palin on a Big Media late night comedy show.

Recall that the Palin book tour was ceaselessly mocked by Big Media “personalities”. On the NBC “Tonight Show” the beatings took place at least once a week:

Sarah Palin recorded a surprise appearance tonight on the Tonight Show, which has lately featured the actor William Shatner reading passages of her memoir and her Facebook postings.

In the segment airing tonight, Palin walks on at the conclusion of Shatner’s mockery — and reads from Shatner’s own autobiography, I’m told.

UPDATE: Palin did indeed emerge, saying “I’m doing great, and I thought Bill did a great job, wonderful job.”

“It’s only appropriate then,” she said, “that I read a few choice excerpts from Mr. Shatner’s autobiography.” Behind her, a bassist, bongo player and flautist as she recited from “Up Till Now: The Autobiography”:

“As I finished Mr. Tambourine Man, I glanced over at Johnny Carson, who had a look of astonishment on his face, vaguely similar to the look on Spock’s face when his brain was missing.”

And the highlight:

“I felt so alive. My whole being resonated with the incredible feeling that I was going to visit with an elephant on a starlit moonless night in Africa. And I was going to visit that elephant in my underwear.”

According to a new Fox poll–the first major poll on Palin since her book release and media blitz–a full 70 percent of Republicans view her favorably, while 21 percent view her unfavorably. Huckabee, meanwhile, collects 63 percent favorable vs. 28 percent unfavorable; Romney gets 60 percent favorable vs. 20 percent unfavorable.

Sarah Palin, as a Republican, as a conservative, will hep all women, including Hillary Clinton in the fight against sexism and misogyny. The Democratic Party is now captive to misogynists such as Obama and Big Blog Boys but true Democrats are a tiny core that will continue to oppose misogyny and sexism with deeds.

Dimocrats will pretend to be against sexism and misogyny but it is all a fake from a fake party of fake principles and fake people. The fake women’s groups, along with gay groups and others are captives of the Dimocratic Party and not interested in their constituencies:

Sarah Palin’s complaint that Newsweek’s cover image this week was “sexist” and “a wee bit degrading” has drawn a notably muted response from the women’s rights groups who often serve as arbiters of the treatment of female public figures.

No prominent women’s groups leaped to Palin’s defense, and attempts to reach their leaders this morning drew nuanced responses that reflect their ambivalence at the fact that the nation’s highest-profile female politician is a social and economic conservative who — while describing herself as a feminist — leans heavily on traditional notions of motherhood and sex appeal when it suits her politically.

“It’s much more complicated than sexism,” said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which focuses on putting women in elected office. “What the [Republican] Party was selling, and people were buying — and what the candidate colluded [in] — is what shows up in that Newsweek picture.”

“She winked at people, right?” said Wilson.

Palin “winked” and that is a crime not worthy of defense say the hypocrites. Sarah Palin and her supporters need to take on the hypocrites now and as often as necessary:

Palin isn’t going anywhere, however, and groups concerned about the image of women in public life seem likely to be grappling with her place in the spotlight for quite a while.

Hillary supporters and Sarah Palin supporters have interests in common. Neither of us should complain at the over-the-top fact checking of Palin’s books by an army of reporters. What we can and should all do is demand fact checks of Obama’s books. Here at Big Pink we have exposed the flim-flams and lies which pass unquestioned as “autobiographies”. Big Media should devote double the resources to fact-checking Obama’s fictitious books and his wife’s fictions as were devoted to fact-checking Palin, and Hillary.

We’ll keep setting the record straight, and we’ll keep reminding some in the media that Americans are very tired of their non-objective reporting. A great, recent post that accomplishes this is a Conservatives4Palin post. It’s got some nice fact checking included. As always, they did a great job holding some of the media accountable for spreading more misinformation and for making things up. You can read it here. Enjoy!

82 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Versus Sarah Palin, Part II”

Amen! All the double-talk from Edwards and bambi were, are, and always will be just drivel. The only change bambi has made is change for the worse. Edwards is yesterday’s cartoon. Hillary continues to shine.

And yes maybe Hillary can learn from Palin about handling the media, but I still believe that Palin has a heck of a lot to learn from Hillary.

Top story: The world’s two largest polluters have reached an impasse that threatens to derail the climate change talks in Copenhagen. China pledged a 40-45 percent in “carbon intensity” — a measurement of carbon dioxide per unit of production — by 2020 but says it will resist any outside monitoring of its efforts. Negotiators from the United States — which has pledged a 3-4 percent cut in emissions by 2020 — believe the Chinese target is too low and say Congress is unlikely to approve any deal that does not include outside verification of China’s efforts. The European Union, meanwhile, called on both countries to set more ambitious targets.

Yesterday’s talks were also hampered by a brief walkout of African nations demanding that rich countries sign on to deep and binding emissions cuts, as well as logistical problems that left thousands of attendees literally out in the cold without credentials.

It now unlikely that a deal will be on the table by the time major world leaders — including U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao — arrive later this week, unusual for such a high-profile meeting.

On the economy, 52 percent of people surveyed said they didn’t approve of the first-year Democratic president’s performance, a majority for the first time, pollsters said. Fifty-six percent of respondents disapproved on his handling of the federal budget deficit.

Fifty-three percent also disapprove of Obama’s work on healthcare, with respondents, by a 51 percent-to-44 percent margin, opposing the package moving through Congress, ABC News said.

Obama received nearly equal marks on unemployment, 47 percent saying they approved of his work while 48 percent said they didn’t, the poll said.

As commander in chief, Obama received a 54 percent approval rating, while his handling of the war in Afghanistan was at 52 percent approval.

The lower President Barack Obama’s approval numbers go the more certain he seems to be about his vision for the country. In the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for December 15, 41 percent of those surveyed across America give Obama’s performance as president a highly negative review.

On healthcare, the issue that is at this moment at the forefront of the debate, 56 percent of those surveyed by Rasmussen now say they oppose the bill working its way through the Senate. Yet he continues to press ahead with signature issues like healthcare as though the sentiments of the electorate mattered not at all to him, never once pausing to admit that he has been wrong about anything or that he has failed to live up to the promises he made during his presidential campaign.

Much has already been written about how he has already violated his pledge not to raises taxes, any kind of taxes on families making less that $250,000 per year. The bill currently making its way through the Senate contains at least six, a fact he has yet to mention. Nor has he fulfilled his promise to put the healthcare negotiations—any of the healthcare negotiations—on C-SPAN so the American people can see the wheeling and dealing and horse-trading that has obviously been going on, the latest being the watering-down of the public option provision to satisfy the demands of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

The president’s approval ratings have fallen farther faster than any of his predecessors. Perhaps because the critical bloc of independent voters that backed him in 2008 have been turned off by what could be called Obama’s arrogance in office.

A perfect example of this is White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer’s comment to Politico that it would be “hard to imagine another president ever taking on (the) Herculean task” of healthcare reform should Obama fail to pass it this year. As though somehow Obama is the only one capable of meeting the challenge, an expression of political arrogance on par with wondering if he could create a budget deficit so big that he himself could not spend it.

The hubris that led him to accept the Nobel Peace Prize for what he might accomplish and to claim credit for an economic recovery because of the jobs that might have been saved thanks to his stimulus package, among other things, is off-putting—and beginning to sink in.

I look at it this way- No one can stop the “stars from shining” no matter how hard they try; it can’t be done. They may experience many cloudy, rainy, nights when it looks as if the stars are no more. When the sky clears, there come the ding dang stars whether anyone likes it or not!

Bill and Hill are STARS in their own right. Enough time has elapsed (almost a year) where people are able to see for themselves the Clinton’s are working for the good of the people. Their work is starting to be recognized for the great work it is- Hillary as professional, knowledgeable, very popular with the World’s heads of state. She has transformed herself into the consumate stateswomen.

Bill has created a foundation that seems to draw Big Donors like a magnet. They have confidence in him their donations will be spent in the most judicious ways. Afterall, he has a 5 yr track record producing results with his foundation that speaks for itself.

This is the first time in my recollection, the Clintons are not having to deal with the backdrop of malicious, salacious attacks coming from the Right and Left accusing them of outrageous making newspaper headlines as talk show fodder for pundits. They are free to be themselves and not living on the defensive.

For the time being, Sarah Palin is a more attractive target. No pun intended. She’s the shiny new thing they can play with.. But, it all goes along with the territory. Paying your dues, testing your strength and resolve if you intend on staying in the game.

We’ve been through so much with the Clintons, Bill and Hill have become like family. And like family, we’re proud and happy they are doing well for themselves and the people they are helping build a better life. What more can we ask for? Just one more thing? Madame President Hillary Clinton would just about do it!

MATT TAIBBI
TAIBBLOG
MY PROFILEMY HEADLINE GRABSMY RSS FEED
Dec. 15 2009 — 12:34 pm | 1,394 views | 6 recommendations | 33 comments
PhRMA Hack: Campaign Promises Are Just That
The dispute traps Obama between his campaign rhetoric and the political realities of health-care reform, which depends in large part on tacit support from drugmakers and other industry groups. Under the earlier agreement with the White House, the pharmaceutical industry agreed to contribute $80 billion toward reform over 10 years in exchange for protection from further cuts.

“It’s about being a candidate as opposed to being president,” said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). “When you become president, you realize that the sound bites don’t always work in reality. . . . I think they’ve looked at the problems now and have concluded there’s no way to ensure the safety of medicines reimported into the United States right now.”

via Drugmakers fight plan to allow drug reimportation.

This is hilarious and doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary.

As a candidate, Barack Obama endorsed the idea of allowing consumers to import cheaper pharmaceuticals from other industrialized countries. In the Senate he co-sponsored a bill that pushed the idea.

But now that he’s president and is taking money from the pharmaceutical lobby (PhRMA) to help get his bullshit health care bill passed, his administration is backtracking. His FDA chief Margaret Hamburg is pulling out the old safety canard. The CBO has estimated that a bill sponsored by Byron Dorgan to allow drug re-importation would save the government $19 billion over 10 years, and save consumers $80 billion.

There’s no legitimate reason to bar re-importation, except one: to preserve a subsidy for the pharmaceutical industry and, by extension, preserve the flow of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. That is why President Obama is now opposing the sensible measures he endorsed as a candidate. He is pursuing this year’s expedient goal of getting a campaign war chest now that he’s already achieved last year’s expedient goal of getting elected.

To have a PhRMA hack openly defending this flip-flip as justifiable shows how morally lost these people (and their defenders in the media) are. They really think that expediency is a defensible ideology and they are legitimately flabbergasted when people expect that a president follow through on his campaign promises. Apparently we are supposed to assume that a political candidate always lies and just accept that, and those of us who do not are “naive.” As my friend David Sirota put it:

There is no substantive reason why what a president cannot push what he promises on the campaign trail – especially when it comes to something like pharmaceutical reimportation, which every other industrialized country has legalized. I repeat – there is simply no substantive reason why a president cannot push what he has promised on the campaign trail. The platitudes from corporate lobbyists insisting that the alleged difference between “campaigning and governing” somehow absolves politicians from breaking their promise is deliberately designed to perpetuate the status quo.

There are a lot of people in DC who are drinking the same Kool-Aid this dingbat from PhRMA has been drinking. You know the disease has reached an advanced stage when they start saying this stuff out loud.

On Glenn Beck today he mentioned that Lieberman now agrees to vote for the HC bill. Apparently the woman who runs Firedoglake told Rahm/Reid to get to Lieberman thru his wife. Glenn was screaming that this amounts to Chicago strong arming.

Ooh! I just went to Firedoglake, them there folks are PIST! It seems they think they have a rethug POTUS!! Can you say they hate Obama as much as Bush, yes many say Hell yeah! ROTFLMAO!!! They were drunk on the kool-aid!!! We tried to tell them!!!

if Hillary does decide to run for office again, I hope, and assume she has, learned that she will need fighters like herself running her campaign…forget the Penns and other moles that infiltrate and sell her down the river…she is going to have to always stay a few steps ahead of herself…

she will need people that can give better than they get…that fight back…that run a campaign like Bill did in 92…no fooling around…no leaving things up in the air or in the hands of flakes…she will have to be ready to take on the media and her opponent…aggressively…and with all that confidence that we all know she has…but she has to be ready to be sabatoged at any moment…and prepared for those sneak attacks…

she will need an army that isn’t afraid to go for it…to survive in the political jungle post Obama…

does anyone have a link to who voted for and against Dorgan’s importing low price prescription drugs bill? I know it was 52-48 but I want to know if any dems were voting against this? We know the WH is against it and was pressuring dims not to support it…

Can you believe this? health care reform was supposed to be about lowering the costs to americans, instead we are getting a forced enslavement to insurance co that can continue to raise premiums and O goes against a bill he co-sponsored when he was in the senate – to allow importing low cost drugs to save americans money…all the while O cuts secret deals with the same drug co…

I know Hillary can’t say anything about this as SOS, but Bill piped in awhile ago…I’d like to see him stick to O now on this…there should be major shouting and complaining about this…every leftie should be blogging about this…it is an outrage! a real outrage…

“If you like this pricing, where our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, don’t vote for this amendment,” said Byron Dorgan, right before the vote on his amendment to safely re-import prescription drugs from Canada, Europe and abroad.

Robert Menendez, the Senator from Merck, got fired up in his speech, citing the authority of the FDA and saying that public safety is the entire issue. The FDA has a fairly poor track record in recent years keeping Americans safe from faulty products imported from abroad, and in this case we’re talking about the same drugs manufactured at the same location, but whatever you’ve got, I guess. He also said that reimportation “would do nothing to close the doughnut hole,” which is kind of like saying that raising taxes on rich people would do nothing for making the Postal Service more effective.

I’ll be monitoring this vote, which is happening now.

…The clerk is calling the roll. So far I’ve heard Lamar Alexander say “aye” on this, along with Sherrod Brown. Republicans could really impair the pharmaceutical deal, and in a larger sense the entire bill, by signing on to this measure. We’ll see if their love of corporate boondoggles conflicts with that.

…it looks to me like the amendment is going to pass by a huge margin. Dozens of Republicans are supporting. They’ve gamed this out perfectly.

There are a lot of so-called “progressives” on health care voting against the amendment, too.

Something to keep in mind – if the Lautenberg amendment passes, it would essentially invalidate the Dorgan amendment by adding the caveat that the FDA certify everything at the border.

Bunches of Democrats have decided to vote against this in the past few roll calls, this is going to be extremely close.

Senators are huddled around the desk tabulating the votes, this is one of those where the outcome is not pre-determined. Dick Durbin has a panicked look on his face.

…A late move toward the no side could deny this the needed 60 votes. They just got Lieberman to vote against it, along with luminaries like Kerry, Schumer, Reid, Durbin, Burris and Rockefeller.

…Lautenberg’s amendment has passed the Senate four separate times. It clearly kills re-importation because we haven’t seen any. This defeat of the Dorgan amendment is simply being done to preserve a corrupt deal.

Yeas 51, nays 48. Dorgan amendment does not pass.

…Lautenberg’s amendment is up now, it’ll pass because it’s passed before. But Sen. Dorgan is right, “Do not vote for the Lautenberg amendment and say you’ve done something about prescription drugs, your constituents will know better.”

Big PhRMa wins again in the US Senate, consumers get screwed.

…Wow, even the Lautenberg amendment didn’t pass, losing 56-43. Keep in mind that this kind of amendment has passed the Senate at least four times. Big PhRMa laid down the law.

…Roll call on the Dorgan Amendment is here. The White House had to line up 31 no votes from the Democratic caucus to kill this.

**********************************************************

gee, how come O was the co-sponsor of this bill when he was in the senate and now as president he lobbys against it…this Nothing Left Dim party really needs to go down…they are useless…counterproductive frauds…

I am so tired of the corruption in this country. If anything is good for the people, our representatives vote against us, and vote for the interests of the special interests. Pelousy calls this bill a “gift” for the American people. What a pile of hooey. There is nothing in this bill to control the cost of healthcare, but taxes will increase for the middle class and the elderly will have a decrease in services. What a nightmare.

“If you like this pricing, where our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, don’t vote for this amendment,” said Byron Dorgan, right before the vote on his amendment to safely re-import prescription drugs from Canada, Europe and abroad.

Robert Menendez, the Senator from Merck, got fired up in his speech, citing the authority of the FDA and saying that public safety is the entire issue. The FDA has a fairly poor track record in recent years keeping Americans safe from faulty products imported from abroad, and in this case we’re talking about the same drugs manufactured at the same location, but whatever you’ve got, I guess. He also said that reimportation “would do nothing to close the doughnut hole,” which is kind of like saying that raising taxes on rich people would do nothing for making the Postal Service more effective.

I’ll be monitoring this vote, which is happening now.

…The clerk is calling the roll. So far I’ve heard Lamar Alexander say “aye” on this, along with Sherrod Brown. Republicans could really impair the pharmaceutical deal, and in a larger sense the entire bill, by signing on to this measure. We’ll see if their love of corporate boondoggles conflicts with that.

…it looks to me like the amendment is going to pass by a huge margin. Dozens of Republicans are supporting. They’ve gamed this out perfectly.

There are a lot of so-called “progressives” on health care voting against the amendment, too.

Something to keep in mind – if the Lautenberg amendment passes, it would essentially invalidate the Dorgan amendment by adding the caveat that the FDA certify everything at the border.

Bunches of Democrats have decided to vote against this in the past few roll calls, this is going to be extremely close.

Senators are huddled around the desk tabulating the votes, this is one of those where the outcome is not pre-determined. Dick Durbin has a panicked look on his face.

…A late move toward the no side could deny this the needed 60 votes. They just got Lieberman to vote against it, along with luminaries like Kerry, Schumer, Reid, Durbin, Burris and Rockefeller.

…Lautenberg’s amendment has passed the Senate four separate times. It clearly kills re-importation because we haven’t seen any. This defeat of the Dorgan amendment is simply being done to preserve a corrupt deal.

Yeas 51, nays 48. Dorgan amendment does not pass.

…Lautenberg’s amendment is up now, it’ll pass because it’s passed before. But Sen. Dorgan is right, “Do not vote for the Lautenberg amendment and say you’ve done something about prescription drugs, your constituents will know better.”

Big PhRMa wins again in the US Senate, consumers get screwed.

…Wow, even the Lautenberg amendment didn’t pass, losing 56-43. Keep in mind that this kind of amendment has passed the Senate at least four times. Big PhRMa laid down the law.

…Roll call on the Dorgan Amendment is here. The White House had to line up 31 no votes from the Democratic caucus to kill this.

HillaryforTexas said:
HillaryforTexas siad:
We need to back up, take an honest look at the data, and go from there – not insanely push through an agenda that will have a MASSIVE effect on our lives and economies.

====================

I don’t like the Cap and Trade Obama is trying to push, nor his donations to African countries, etc etc. However the Clinton/Gore ‘agenda’ (begun in the 90s and continuing) to switch to clean energy is a different thing, and imo is reasonable (Palin too wanted to switch Alaska to a large percent clean energy, ie geothermal etc).

Some people (not unreasonably) want to apply this to the petroleum industry, saying let’s not do certain harm to an industry when we cannot be sure that we would really be helping the environment by doing so.

Others apply it to the environment, saying let’s not take a chance on harming the environment with pollution.

Imo an ‘industry’ is a fictitious entity, really composed of individual people — individuals who can be given cleaner jobs if we go about it right (ie as Clinton/Gore propose). So by cleaning up, we are doing certain good to the people who are now pumping gas and parking cars — and we are probably preventing serious harm to the environment.

Some sort of world government taxing family goats is tinfoil. US gas prices in line with EU gas prices is an Obama come-on to the limosine liberals, used early in his campaign; now they’re under the bus with single payer, public option, etc etc. Whatever the Copenhagen people come out with will probably be 90% smoke and mirrors to make Obama and other leaders look good to their fans.

I’m sure an honest look at all the data is in progress, by the nearest to honest scientists we have: those at universities who did their training long before this became a political issue. And perhaps in some small nations without strong pressures either way.

This defeat of the Dorgan amendment is simply being done to preserve a corrupt deal.
——————————————–
The delusional dummies at firedog lake finally got one right. I figured they would agree with Obama that we must protect the safety of the American People from the hazardous risks of prescription drugs imported from Canada. If they have not figured out yet who Obama is then perhaps they need to see the cartoon in the Matt Taibbi article.

birdgal, i agree with you again…mccain would have been about the same on afghanastan, but more decisive…but, imho, he would have been much more responsible with spending, earmarks…i think he would have targeted money and had to work and compromise with a dimocratic congress…a mccain presidency would not have been all about him and his ego…and trips everywhere and interviews and teleprompter speeches every day ad nauseum…i think he would have been more humble during such difficult times…

I am not sure how he would have handled the banks and wall st, although there is this:

newsweek.com/id/226938

More than a year after the election, the Arizona Republican is looking to repair that reputation by joining up with Democratic firebrand Maria Cantwell to propose something that will be anathema to both Wall Street and the Obama administration. According to two congressional sources, the two maverick senators want to reinstate Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that forced the separation of regular commercial banking from Wall Street investment banking. The senators’ proposal echoes a failed amendment introduced in the House last week by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York.

*******************************************

at least mccain would have been a buffer and could veto the waste of money the dims are committing…last night i heard an analysis about the next big wave to come crashing…

…commerical real estate…we have talked about it before but everyone is ignoring it…however there is a real threat that many malls will go out of business and be foreclosed…then what? more and more jobs lost…i read that SEARS and Blockbuster are very shaky, I think i even heard Macy’s mentioned…

and O and the dims just go merrily marching on like everthing is fine…you get a few publicity stunts when the polls begin to reflect the people’s anger and fears…then back to the hubris…so detached…all about them…

admin: You are so right. We all could have been a lot more organized. We’re still not organized. How about doing a few Hillary Is 44 press releases? We can do them at Puma Pac as well. Where’s Lady Lynn? It’s about time she gets back on the air.

I’m hearing on the news channels this morning that the WH is upset with Dr. Dean…Savannah Guthrie on MSNBC just now reported that WH staff are furious with Dr. Dean’s comments last night and that they referred to him as being irrelevant.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.

After a year of bruising legislative victories that some political analysts believe have done more to jeopardize her majority than to entrench it, Pelosi is shifting gears for the 2010 election.

The Speaker recently assured her freshman lawmakers and other vulnerable members of her caucus that a vote on immigration reform is not looming despite a renewed push from the White House and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The House will not move on the issue until the upper chamber passes a bill, Pelosi told the members.

But according to Democrats who have spoken to Pelosi, the Speaker has expanded that promise beyond immigration, informing Democratic lawmakers that the Senate will have to move first on a host of controversial issues before she brings them to the House floor.

“The Speaker has told members in meetings that we’ve done our jobs,” a Democratic leadership aide said. “And that next year the Senate’s going to have to prove what it can accomplish before we go sticking our necks out any further.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the president of the freshman class, said that Pelosi came to last Wednesday’s freshman breakfast to deliver that message, and that it was met with wide spread approval.

“I think freshmen, particularly, are not enamored of the idea of being asked to walk the plank on a controversial item if the Senate is not going to take any action,” Connolly said.

Pelosi’s promise could dim the prospects for other White House priorities as well, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — known as “card check” — and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibition on gays serving openly in the military.

“There’s not going to be a ton of stuff legislatively next year either way,” a House leadership aide said. “But on EFCA — even though the House has demonstrated its ability to pass it — and on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Senate is definitely going to have to act first.”

The House passed EFCA during the last Congress, but members who voted on that bill were well-aware it had no chance to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.

After passing a series of expensive bills, including the $787 billion stimulus, Democrats are vowing to reduce the federal deficit next year.

There certainly will be difficult votes for Democrats next year, ranging from raising the debt limit to funding the troop surge in Afghanistan. Those types of “must-pass” bills are expected to clear both chambers of Congress.

Some liberals are concerned that there will be fewer Democrats after the 2010 elections and that the White House should ramp up, not slow down, its agenda. They have also made the case that President Barack Obama and congressional leaders must move left to ensure that the Democrats’ base will show up next November, and argument immigration reform proponents have been making with increased intensity in recent weeks.

Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and administration officials recently agreed that, on the heels of the House taking the lead on a climate change bill that was declared dead on arrival in the Senate and a healthcare bill that’s taking on a more centrist form with each passing day, the Senate would have to pass an immigration reform bill before the House would vote on its own.

Key House Democrats have said that Pelosi needed to solicit that promise from Reid in order to quell an emerging two-front rebellion in her caucus — from Hispanic Democrats who had grown tired of hearing false promises, and from vulnerable Democrats tired of being forced to support contentious bills facing certain death in the Senate.

I saw a new episode of The Good Wife last night. One of the partners that owns the firm was approached by the Democates to run for judge. However, there was a controversay with the firm and a judge that appear racists. It turned out he was sending primarily AAs to prison because he was getting a kickback, and he had a gambling problem.

When the partner approach the Chief Justice (a Dem) about what might be going it, she was told to ignore it. Of course, when it all came out, they could not.

In the end they asked the partner not to run, as they were pissed because they had to call the corrupt judge out.

MAYBE THE MEDIA IS BEGINNING TO WAKE UP, OR AT LEAST SOME OF THE WRITERS ARE.

Good morning all.With Hillary there in Copenhagen a day ahead of BO will give her the stage for all the world to see and hear. then along comes THE HOCUS POKUS BOGUS POTUS and he will realize that the icing is gone from the cake and he is standing there without his clothes.Forrest Gumps Mom had it so right with her famous quote.Amen.
Hillary will be our next President and then we must roll up our sleeves and get to work clearing the freeloaders from our congress.
What is now left of the Media will become extinct and Fox will set their bloodhounds free and embrace Hillary as the Genuine answer to
solving the problems that the political Hacks and the BOGUS POTUS
created.

Keep the faith young bloggers and you have the power to save our democracy fromitself.

New York Post’s Michael Goodwin has this to say about beloved leader today:

Barack has no deaf-ense for a tin ear
By MICHAEL GOODWIN
Of all the surprises of President Obama’s first year, the biggest is his continuing tin ear for the mood of the country. He often appears clueless about what Americans want.Almost from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office, the man who smashed the Clinton machine and won an electoral landslide over John McCain seemed to lose his touch with the people who put him there.Some days, many days, he doesn’t look like he cares that big chunks of the country, left, right and center, are giving up on him. Voters by a large margin have said for months they don’t want the health-care overhaul he’s pushing, so he pushes harder. They want less spending and debt, so he doubles down on pork, bailouts, handouts and taxes. They thought he would deliver bipartisanship, and he gives his hard-left allies the keys to the kingdom. They worry about terrorism, so he wants to close Gitmo and move the worst of the worst to the homeland. With Ground Zero still a mess, he gives the 9/11 plotters civilian trials in New York.His approval ratings are speeding downhill and some 60 percent say the country is on the wrong track. He responds by giving himself a “good solid B-plus” for his first year.And he says Wall Street bankers “don’t get it.”It comes as no surprise, of course, that our young president has a very, very high opinion of himself. But it is nonetheless shocking he remains so brazenly self-righteous in the face of growing public discontent.A damn-the-torpedoes style of leadership would be welcome if he were an optimist brandishing an inclusive, sunny-side up vision. He’s not. He’s too often testy, churlish and downright whiny.His vision is little more than a string of gauzy utopian platitudes glued together with fear, as when he told fellow Dems yesterday that the flawed health-bill represented “the last chance” for reform. The last chance? Forever?His charge that bankers have an obligation “to help rebuild the economy” by making more and presumably riskier loans boggles the mind. Low standards are the hair of the dog that led to liar loans and other housing disasters. By all means, let’s do it again.When something goes wrong, it’s not his fault. “Fat-cat bankers,” “greedy” insurance companies, doctors who do amputations just for the money, special interests, the media — the media! — have all taken their turns being blamed for what he hasn’t fixed. The buck doesn’t stop on his desk!If all other scapegoats fail, there’s always George W. Bush. Pressed during last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” interview on his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama shared his pain and slandered Bush — all to distinguish his troop surge from his predecessor’s.”One of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war,” Obama said. “There was a tendency to say, ‘We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise.’ When, in fact, this is a tough business.”So even when he reaches the same conclusion as Bush, pursues the same enemy, relies on the same commanders and the same Defense secretary, it’s different.
Why? Because he says so.

I am increasingly concerned that even if Hillary were to become the Dem choice in 2012, that Obama will have so thorougly trashed the dem party that no democrat will be palatable to the country. Hillary has chosen to support the O administration cheerfully and with committment. Had she stayed out of it and provided opposition, it would be different.
Many people think that for the first time in our history a strong independent candidate could carry the day in 2012. I can not remember a time in my lifetime when both parties appeared so totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.
I don’t presume to know the inside political track as well as Hillary and Bill, but I hope this hasn’t been a massive miscalculation on their part. Or perhaps, they really do still believe in and trust this dem party.

Former President Clinton is the most politically astute strategist on the face of the earth. Never again will the ill advised (Solis-Doyle) Hillary listen to any strategy coming from anyone else. I have faith the mistakes made in the last campaign will not be repeated IF she chooses to try again.

Carol
December 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I am increasingly concerned that even if Hillary were to become the Dem choice in 2012, that Obama will have so thorougly trashed the dem party that no democrat will be palatable to the country.
&&&&&&&&

Of all Dems, HRC is best suited to “running away from Obama”. Her war with him in the primaries is widely known, even to people who don’t follow politics at all. And despite being part of the administration, there is plenty of feeling that there is an undercurrent of distrust between the two.

Hillary’s continued popularity attests to the fact that she is still seen as capable, wonky on the policies, and having a strong will, countering Obama’s ineptitude, ignorance and spinelessness.

Penn, Bill’s guy, also ran an awful campaign for Hillary along with the others….Bill,as brilliant a politician as there ever will be, had no idea how to handle Obama and the MSM .
———————————–

I am not sure there is really any effective response that Bill or anybody could come up against the unprincipled, nothing is beneath me and I will lie about anything and everything kind of campaign that Obama ran. We had nobody on our side in the establishment including the media who would call out on his shenanigans. The only thing that could have been done was to bring him down early but Hillary did not want to damage him too much. She played by the rules and he didn’t.

I am not sure there is really any effective response that Bill or anybody could come up against the unprincipled, nothing is beneath me and I will lie about anything and everything kind of campaign that Obama ran. We had nobody on our side in the establishment including the media who would call out on his shenanigans. The only thing that could have been done was to bring him down early but Hillary did not want to damage him too much. She played by the rules and he didn’t.
——————————–
I see it differently. I think the points Admin made are valid. The media was a potential target. The false charge of racism was another. The Soros betrayal was yet another. There was a general reluctance to counterattack those groups for fear of dividing the party or damaging the general election. There was a tendency to rely too much on insiders. Penn was a disaster. Doyle was a traitor. Carvel should have been used. Maggie Williams should have been brought in earlier. Florida and Michigan should have been handled differently. My point is not to critize but to simply point out that nothing was inevitable and there are things that could have been done differently that would have made the critical difference. I think she will run again and those mistakes will not be repeated. If we can turn big media into the traitor and pariah it is then we can turn their abject pathological hatred of her into a positive. It is critical to negate their influence by holding them responsible for what will occur during his dangerous tenure.

Mrs. Smith
December 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Former President Clinton is the most politically astute strategist on the face of the earth. Never again will the ill advised (Solis-Doyle) Hillary listen to any strategy coming from anyone else. I have faith the mistakes made in the last campaign will not be repeated IF she chooses to try again.

—————

Amen!

Another question I have: Would they put Hillary up against Palin? What would be the outcome?

THE rumour was compelling, even by the high-octane standards of Washington. Vice-president Joe Biden would step down in two years’ time, allowing Hillary Clinton to join the Democrats’ presidential ticket in 2012. Then, after serving with Barack Obama through his second term, Clinton would be all set to win the White House in 2016. The gossip spread like wildfire through the cocktail parties of Washington, into the blogosphere and then into the mainstream press. The dream of Clinton becoming America’s first woman president was suddenly alive again.

But the true importance of the rumour lay not in its details, but in its very existence. Eighteen months ago, smarting from defeat by Obama’s upstart campaign, such a political rebirth would have been unthinkable. There had been undeniable bitterness between the two camps. The Democratic party had been divided. Two such colossal figures could never work together, let alone prosper. Clinton, in short, would return to the Senate and continue the loyal, dogged work of drawing up legislation and ease into history as an elder stateswoman.

But the past year has seen a remarkable rejuvenation of Clinton as Secretary of State. She has reinvented herself as a highly visible public figure representing the US. At the same time, to the surprise of many critics, she has earned a reputation for loyalty within the Obama administration. ”The critics who said she would undermine Obama have been shown to be wrong,” said Robin Gerber, author of Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way.

Indeed, the only place where Clinton has perhaps trodden on her boss’ toes is in the popularity stakes. While Obama has become the focus of domestic discontent that has seen his approval ratings slump to below 50 per cent in some polls, Clinton has gone from strength to strength. In October, one Gallup survey had Clinton’s approval rating at 62 per cent. She graced the cover of Time magazine last month under the headline ”The State of Hillary”. One pundit approvingly dubbed her ”America’s Iron Lady”.

Some might say that Clinton’s first year as Secretary of State has gone some way towards soothing the wounds left by her thwarted ambition to take the White House. Though she is not president, Clinton has nonetheless achieved what she has always wanted: influence and power.

In an era of celebrity politics, Clinton certainly holds her own with Obama. Her name and her face are among the most recognisable in the world. Her presence at an event, or her visit to a foreign county, guarantees a slew of media coverage. ”Obama is a celebrity president. She is a celebrity secretary of state,” said Isobel Coleman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. That fame has allowed both Obama and Clinton to bask in some of the successes of American foreign policy over the past year. The commitment to closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was hailed around the world, as was a vow to cease torturing detainees.

American diplomats, after eight years of more muscular Republican unilateralism, were suddenly talking up the strengths of negotiating and forging international alliances. America even scrapped a proposed missile shield that had been a darling of the Bush years, though it outraged Russia and appeared to have serious technical problems.

Clinton has been able to soak up the benefit of a global sense that America has fundamentally changed the direction of its politics. She has embarked on trips to Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East that have differed substantially in tone from those of the Bush years.

In Pakistan, she eschewed the usual private audiences with generals and politicians and held a series of often raucous public meetings. ”The tone is different now and don’t ever underestimate the importance of tone in diplomacy,” said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former aide in the Clinton White House.

But there is also a powerful critique building up of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy. Clinton is attacked for not making any single issue – say, women’s rights – her diplomatic centrepiece. She is also accused of excessive travelling, and of giving flowery speeches without actually taking any difficult stands. Her critics point out that on some tough issues, such as human rights in China or Tibet, America has pursued similar policies to the Bush administration. The Obama Administration looks prettier to its foreign admirers, but the substance remains the same: projection and protection of American power. That argument is especially strong when it comes to Afghanistan. Obama was elected on a promise of winding down the war in Iraq and committing extra resources to Afghanistan. But few of those who supported him imagined that he would follow through on that promise to the point where tens of thousands of extra troops would be dispatched. Likewise, with America’s stance on Iran. Relations with Iran are as testy as ever and many believe that a potentially devastating face-off over Iran’s nuclear ambitions remains every bit as likely as it as when Bush was in power. ”On Iran you are ending up with a policy that is not dissimilar to the Bush one,” said Coleman.

But Clinton is savvy enough to know that her main audience does not lie abroad, but at home. She has taken her deserved reputation for toughness and translated it into her position in the administration, posing firmly as a hawk. That has won her some unexpected new admirers. Retired four-star general Jack Keane told one interviewer: ”I’m a Republican. I disagree with her about practically everything, but she’d make a hell of a commander-in-chief.” Indeed, Clinton is known to be reliably hawkish on all the top national security issues, from North Korea to Iran, to Israel and the Middle East. She has given the administration a tough edge on the day-to-day running of diplomacy.

But she has also shown her canny streak in securing her own position within Obama’s team. Foreign policy is a crowded field in Washington, attracting attention from Obama himself, Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Biden. But a skilful Clinton has gracefully forged alliances and played the game to emerge as a winner. She plays a team game for Obama, maintains an excellent relationship with Gates and has helped see off Biden’s dovish instincts on Afghanistan. She has used her strong personal relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to prove her usefulness in the Afghan theatre. She has thrived in a post she never thought she would hold.

”Clinton is passionate and practical. She has shown an ability to be both an effective team player and to step out on her own. She walks that line very well,” said Haas.

Certainly she has stepped out from the shadow of her husband, Bill. One of her few public flaps came on a trip to the Congo, when a student made the mistake of asking her what her spouse thought of a certain issue. Clinton snapped back that she was ”not going to be channelling her husband”. Never were truer words spoken. After being first lady, a New York senator, battling against Obama in 2008, and now Secretary of State, Clinton has defiantly emerged as a major American figure in her own right.

So what of the rumour that she may replace Biden in 2012 and run in 2016? Away from the chattering pundits, few experts gave the story much credence. ”It’s not impossible. But it would be very hard to see that happening,” said Gerber. But she raised another intriguing possibility. Clinton is a highly trained and accomplished lawyer. After her stint at State, Obama could one day appoint her to the Supreme Court. Then her ability to wield power would go on for as long as she lived. ”That could definitely happen one day,” Gerber said.

One way or another, Clinton’s star is likely to be in the ascendant for years to come.

Nothing good will happen to this country as long as big media survives. They have turned this into class warfare and will play the race card to preserve their imperial prerogatives. They will systematically destroy any candidate who advocates the interests of the American People. No doubt about it.

Quite frankly, why didn’t Obama win it? He probably won last year, but I thought they’d just give it to him four times in a row. You know, just for:
* being who he is
* in some vague way lifting our souls
* for the promise and hope that he’ll be a more effective leader “some time soon”

Mike Tyson against Pwee Herman? I doubt anyone would go to see that fight.

Palin’s readiness test is to first conquer someone like Couric with vigor and panache.

Sarah is mining different aspects of how to handle the media that may come in handy for Hillary if she tailors them to her own personality. Palin can get away with some things Hillary cannot because Hillary’s strength is a great breath of knowledge and her formidable recall of facts and dates. I do believe their strength together is in their unanimity as feminine role models to women all over the world.

A short time ago, Senator Tom Coburn (R-TX) objected to the the unanimous consent request that the “reading of the amendment be dispensed with” when Senator Bernie Sanders’ (admitted Socialist – VT) single-payer amendment (SA#2837), totalling 767 pages, was called up. According to one calculation, this could take 38 hours to read. It is notable that there are two co-sponsors: Sherrod Brown and Roland Burris.

Now, THIS is how you fight the kind of assault on freedom this healthcare monstrocity represents. Leave no tool unused – force the Democrats to face up to an American people who overwhelmingly do NOT want this bill.

BUT, it’s gets even better.

Right before he did that, Senator Coburn asked unanimous consent for an amendment that would, in effect, certify that all Senators have read and understand the bill.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) objected. The specific excange, notable in its absurdity, can be seen here. The specific text follows, and you can see a general summary of today’s floor proceedings here.

MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE ANOTHER UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. FOLLOWING CONSENT REQUEST WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH A COBURN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CERTIFY THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE HAS READ THE BILL AND UNDERSTANDS IT BEFORE THEY VOTE ON THE BILL.

AND THE REASON I ASK THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THAT AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED IS THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT US TO BE DOING. AND SO WE — WE DON’T HAVE A BILL RIGHT NOW. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. THE CHAIRMAN HAS A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. BUT HE DOESN’T KNOW FOR SURE. ONLY TWO SETS OF PEOPLE, SENATOR REID AND HIS STAFF AND C.B.O. KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN THE BILL. I SUSPECT SOMEBODY AT THE WHITE HOUSE MIGHT. BUT WE OUGHT TO — WE OUGHT TO TAKE AND EMBRACE THIS IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN EXPECT EVERY ONE OF US TO HAVE READ THIS BILL PLUS THE AMENDED BILL AND — AND CERTIFY THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING FOR WHAT WE’RE DOING TO HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA WITH THIS BILL. AN I’D ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THAT BE ACCEPTED.

MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?

MR. BAUCUS: MR. PRESIDENT?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.

MR. BAUCUS: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE BASIC UNDERLYING IMPORT THAT WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT WE’RE VOTING ON HERE. I MUST SAY TO MY GOOD FRIEND THAT PRESUMES A CERTAIN LEVEL OF — OF PERCEPTION ON MY PART AND UNDERSTANDING IN DELVING INTO THE MINDS OF THE SENATOR, THAT NOT ONLY DO THEY READ, BUT TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND? WHAT DOES UNDERSTAND MEAN? UNDERSTAND THE FIRST, SECOND LEVELS OF QUESTIONS?

I THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CERTIFY THAT ANY SENATOR FULLY UNDERSTOOD. THEY HEY READ, BUT NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.

MR. COBURN: I WOULD CLARIFY MY REQUEST. THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CERTIFY THEMSELVES. I’M NOT ASKING SOME GROUP OF SENATORS TO CERTIFY SOME OTHER SENATOR. I’M SAYING TOM COBURN TELL HIS CONSTITUENCY I’VE READ THIS PUPPY, I’VE SPENT THE TIME ON IT, I’VE READ THE MANAGER’S AMENDMENT, AND I, IN FACT, CERTIFY TO THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA, I KNOW HOW TERRIBLE IT’S GOING TO BE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE.

MR. BAUCUS: THE SENATOR IS ALWAYS FREE TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION HE WANTS. IF HE WANTS TO CERTIFY HE HAS READ IT, HE HAS UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT’S THE SENATOR’S PRIVILEGE.

MR. COBURN: THE SENATOR WON’T ACCEPT THAT WE AS A BODY ON 1/6 OF THE ECONOMY OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT WE’RE DOING.

MR. BAUCUS: I CAN’T CERTIFY ANY MEMBER OF THE SENATE HAS DONE ANYTHING AROUND HERE. NEITHER CAN THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. IF THE SENATOR WANTS TO CERTIFY IT, THAT’S GREAT. ON ANY MEASURE. BUT I CAN’T CERTIFY ON 100 DIFFERENT SENATORS. THAT’S UP TO THE DIFFERENT SENATORS. THAT’S UP TO THEIR MENTAL CAPACITIES AND CONSCIENCES AND SO FORTH. I CAN’T CERTIFY THAT.

I would hope that Bill and Hillary understand now they must go directly to the people and avoid the MSM next round. They also must distance themselves from the anyone remotely connected to their last campaign. The should get Carville and Begalia back on board and people who they can trust. I also believe Stephanaplous fed the Obama camp info to use against Hillary and Bill.

I also believe Stephanaplous fed the Obama camp info to use against Hillary and Bill.
—————————————————-
I would make the same assumption. His disloyalty was first in evidence when he wrote that book for profit, telling the secrets of the Clinton Administration. That was enough to mark him as a traitor and nothing he has said or done since has caused me to reconsider that judgment. He is a bottom feeder.

Following President Obama’s war speeches at West Point and Oslo — two breathtaking exercises in political cynicism that killed any hope of authentic liberal reform — I’ve got only one question: Have the liberals who worshipped at the altar of “change you can believe in” had enough?

As Pelousy hoists the white flag one is left to wonder: is Amnesty DOA?

No by God! Obama (who never sleeps or rests or vacations like normal people do) is not too preoccupied with saving the world and engineering an economic boom which will launch a generation of prosperity, not to launch to launch yet another awe inspiring uplifting speech imploring us to do the right thing and let 6 billion people come into the country.

In fact he will meet them personally at the border to welcome them to this country and grant them citizenship if they slip him a five spot and Soros nods. These walls (meaning borders) cannot stand. Do you remember his Cairo speech? He was talking about open immigration among other things. He does it the old fashioned Tammany Hall way, just like Boss Tweed–everything is quid pro quo.

While Capt. Obama searches for the missing strawberries, the crew is getting uneasy…that the Captain may not be up to the job.

Delicious. And from what a source!

Even John “Why Don’t We Steal All of My States Delegates and Gift Them To Obama” Conyers is up in arms.

huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/democrats-lash-out-at-oba_n_394424.html

Democrats Lash Out At Obama Over Health Care Disappointments
==========================================

Congressional Democrats are starting to voice their anger at President Obama over the way health care legislation has been compromised, blaming him for not fighting harder.

“The president keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel,” said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). “No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God!” he exclaimed about the Senate health care bill to Roll Call. “The insurance lobby is taking over.”

While many House Democrats have expressed anger with the Senate for the watered-down bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) argued that it was really Obama who let centrists take control. “Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge?” he said. “It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate.”

“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Feingold. “I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.”

As Politico’s Craig Gordon noted about the president’s health care maneuvering, “Time and again, [Obama] rebuffed Democrats’ requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted — a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), pointed to polling that suggests Democrats will face trouble with their base if they don’t deliver a strong bill. “Thirty percent of Democrats will not come out and vote if there is no public option in the health care bill,” she said. “What does that tell you?”

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating. ….

The poll was conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group from December 7th to the 12th, and it asked for opinions of the top Cabinet secretaries and White House officials. Its finding on Obama and Clinton mirrors that of earlier polls – in October, for example, a Gallup poll found that Clinton had become more popular than the president.

Clarus president Ron Faucheux said one reason for Clinton’s high poll numbers is her high approval among Republicans – numbers he said position her well to run for president again in the future, if she chooses. Clinton had 96 percent approval among Democrats, a healthy 57 percent approval among Republicans, and 65 percent approval among Independents. Obama was nearly as popular among Democrats – 93 percent – but his numbers among Republicans and Independents fell off dramatically, at 19 percent and 33 percent respectively.

When House Democrats gathered on Friday for their end-of-the week caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol, caucus chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told the group he wanted them to hear first from Rep. Michael Capuano, who’d just returned from a primary campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy.

Larson asked Capuano, who finished in second place, to share the wisdom he learned on the campaign trail.

Capuano took to the microphone, looked out at his colleagues and condensed what he’d learned into two words. “You’re screwed,” he told his friends in the House, according to one attendee. The room’s silence was broken only by soft, nervous laughter.

Capuano confirmed the gist of the message — “I’m not sure of the exact wording,” he told HuffPost, chuckling — and said that he doubted his wisdom was anything they didn’t already know.

“I think I was just confirming stuff they already knew,” he said. “I focused on two things: the war in Afghanistan and jobs.”

Everywhere Capuano went in his state, he said, he was bombarded with demands that the government do more to create jobs. He was also greeted by deep skepticism about Obama’s escalation of the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan.

Capuano said he told the caucus that opponents of the war need to be given a chance to vote against funding for it on the House floor.

“If we do anything [on the war], we need to have a separate vote on it. People who can vote for it, can vote for it. But those of us who want to vote against it, [should] be given that opportunity, too,” he said. “But I focused mostly on jobs. People are tired of the promises of jobs. They need them now.”

He said voters were less interested in tax credits than they were in direct money for jobs. He asked one crowd if it thought that a town could start hiring people within a month if it was given a million dollars on the condition it begin employing people — the crowd was certain it could.

After the event, a top finance official from the town approached him. “Not only could I do it in 30 days, I could do it in a week,” she said.

Democratic leadership in the House is still working on a jobs bill. Larson told a handful of reporters on Monday that it would likely include roughly $70 billion and focus on infrastructure, aid to state and local governments, and extending unemployment and COBRA health insurance subsidies for the jobless.

The bill, however, is likely to be tied to a defense appropriations bill that is scheduled to be taken up before year’s end. “That’s the last train leaving Clarksville” said Larson, reasoning that attaching it to money for war was the only way to get it done before the end of the year.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, told reporters Tuesday that short-term extensions of unemployment and COBRA will be attached to the defense bill.

In effect, that requires members of Congress to back a war they oppose in order to get funding for jobs, a bargain many are loath to make, but one they’ve made over and over since Democrats rook control of Congress following the 2006 midterm elections — which were decided largely by voters fed up with the war in Iraq.

Miller said that the larger jobs package will be decoupled from the war bill and voted on before the House recesses on Wednesday. No figure for the total spending has been finalized, he said. It’ll then be sent to the Senate. “Obviously, we believe it has to be addressed. It’ll be there. They can take it up. I hope they will,” he said. “Speculating on the Senate is a very bad profession.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), in an interview with two reporters in his office late last week, argued that Democrats were better prepared to withstand a Republican wave than they were in 1994, because they see this one coming.

“Unlike ’94, nobody’s having anything sneak up on them. Nobody in this House believes this next election is a slam dunk, which means they’re out raising money, they’re out in their districts — working hard, communicating on jobs and getting the economy moving,” he said. “And all of that, in my opinion, augurs well for a Democratic Party.”

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.
&&&&&&

“In fact he will meet them personally at the border to welcome them to this country and grant them citizenship if they slip him a five spot and Soros nods. These walls (meaning borders) cannot stand. Do you remember his Cairo speech? He was talking about open immigration among other things. He does it the old fashioned Tammany Hall way, just like Boss Tweed–everything is quid pro quo.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, this is the Cloward-Piven strategy used in 1966 against a Democratically held Congress. you can read here where this strategy is geared to “break” the social system of government agencies. It doesn’t matter if they are municipal, state or federal.. it works. This is Obama’s intent covering illegals with health care and an open door policy for immigration.

I can’t finish the show, it seems that this is the second time the satellite has been knocked off. The first during NCIS and the show was about Muslim’s. This time its Obama’s Chicago style politics against Nelson in Nebraska.